May 2008

Is Iran as Democratic as the United States?

I’ve been trying to understand Iran’s form of government. They have a President, who is elected by the people, and is the second most powerful person in the country. That sounds democratic. But he’s not the top dude.

Above the president is the Supreme Leader who controls the military and police. He also appoints the heads of the judiciary, and state radio and television networks. And he has a great catch-all power described as being “responsible for delineation and supervision of ‘the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.’" In effect, he can diddle with just about anything that starts getting too un-Islamic or generally harmful to the country in his opinion. So it’s a broad power.

The Supreme Leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, based on his qualifications and his esteem. They can also dismiss him.

The Assembly of Experts is a bunch of learned clerics who are elected by the public in democratic elections. They meet once a year. Their meetings are secret, but they’ve never been known to challenge the decisions of the Supreme Leader.

Recapping, the citizens of Iran elect members of the Assembly of Experts, who in turn select the Supreme Leader, and can fire him if necessary. He’s essentially in charge of national security and keeping things appropriately Islamic.

The president is elected in a national system and handles the other governmental functions such as the economy, education, etc.

How’s that not as democratic as the system in the United States?

Granted, the Supreme Leader has a lot of power. But he’s not a dictator. He’s elected by people who are themselves elected. It reminds me of the Electoral College.

The Supreme Leader can effectively diddle with anything he wants under the umbrella of supervising the “general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran." But that sounds a lot like our own Supreme Court, who are not elected officials. A lot of Americans think the Supreme Court is more active than it ought to be.

I suppose someone is going to tell me that Iran’s system of government is really a sham, and that the people in power are only giving the appearance of a democratic system. For example, the Supreme Leader can determine who is allowed to run for office in the first place. How’s that worse than the American version in which big money interests only allow people named Clinton or Bush to get elected president? It’s different, but is it functionally less democratic?

And why does it matter? The Prophet Samuel exposed the entire governmental fraud to Israel over three thousand years ago, in the Bible. Paraphrasing, he said, "You want a government to ensure your prosperity and fight your wars. What governments actually do is enslave YOU to ensure THEIR prosperity, and draft your children to fight THEIR wars."

The idea that government is necessary is a fraud perpetrated by bullies who managed to surround themselves with weaker-willed bullies to enforce their lazy, thieving, arrogant wills, and anyone who buys into it has serious deficiencies they should rectify immediately.

No problem that government has been formed to address has ever been effectively addressed, and there is no lack of examples of private groups of people actually solving each of those problems in their own spheres of influence.

So who cares if the lazy thief who steals a third of your paycheck and puts you in prison for making your own decisions about your own life was democratically elected or appointed at gunpoint? The only difference is that the "democratically elected" one (a fraudulent concept if there ever was one) is part of a system that contains opiates to eliminate EFFECTIVE dissent.

The government of Iran does not perform chemical weapons experiments on its people, as the US does. The government of Iran does not sicken its people by dumping toxic substances in the water supply under the pretense of "improving health." The government of Iran does not tolerate a banking system that systematically enslaves and impoverishes the people (Federal Reserve, "Internal Revenue Service"), and the government of Iran does not fail to investigate crimes against it or its people (there has never been an official investigation of, for example, 9-11). I could go on, but if you don't get the point by now, it's because you really hate dealing with facts.

So, aside from arguments about form, what MEANINGFUL measuring stick would YOU like to use to determine which "system" is "better (and spare me the 'free speech' whining; neither country has it in any meaningful way)?" I'll bet $10 that you can't find one by which Iran's government is ACTUALLY, as opposed to theoretically, worse.

And why does it matter? The Prophet Samuel exposed the entire governmental fraud to Israel over three thousand years ago, in the Bible. Paraphrasing, he said, "You want a government to ensure your prosperity and fight your wars. What governments actually do is enslave YOU to ensure THEIR prosperity, and draft your children to fight THEIR wars."

The idea that government is necessary is a fraud perpetrated by bullies who managed to surround themselves with weaker-willed bullies to enforce their lazy, thieving, arrogant wills, and anyone who buys into it has serious deficiencies they should rectify immediately.

No problem that government has been formed to address has ever been effectively addressed, and there is no lack of examples of private groups of people actually solving each of those problems in their own spheres of influence.

So who cares if the lazy thief who steals a third of your paycheck and puts you in prison for making your own decisions about your own life was democratically elected or appointed at gunpoint? The only difference is that the "democratically elected" one (a fraudulent concept if there ever was one) is part of a system that contains opiates to eliminate EFFECTIVE dissent.

The government of Iran does not perform chemical weapons experiments on its people, as the US does. The government of Iran does not sicken its people by dumping toxic substances in the water supply under the pretense of "improving health." The government of Iran does not tolerate a banking system that systematically enslaves and impoverishes the people (Federal Reserve, "Internal Revenue Service"), and the government of Iran does not fail to investigate crimes against it or its people (there has never been an official investigation of, for example, 9-11).

So, aside from arguments about form, what MEANINGFUL measuring stick would YOU like to use to determine which "system" is "better (and spare me the 'free speech' whining; neither country has it in any meaningful way)?" I'll bet $10 that you can't find one by which Iran's government is worse.

OK, this is a tough one to explain clearly. But there is a difference. Big difference.

I grew up in a totalitarian system which purpoted to be a democracy - and held elections to prove so. When I was 8 years old, I witnessed my first 'democratic elections' in anything but a democratic country.

First, when we walked in, things looked much like they do in election halls here: the local school cafeteria was converted into a place with 10 polling stations. In the middle was a large container into which the ballots were to be dropped. Even to enter the room, my parents had to show ID and they got pointed to their proper polling station. There, their ID was meticulously scrutinized by our next door neighbour, who was a loyal and trusted party member, and they were issued their ballots.

My mom took her ballot, and under the watchful gaze of our neighbour and her 3 co-scrutineers, she ceremoniously walked over to the big container in the middle of the room and dropped the ballot in. She never marked anything, she never even looked at it: each position to be voted for had 1 person as a candidate. If she did not actively cross out any specific name, all the candidates automatically got her vote.

My dad was known as a bit of a rebel - and we all had the troubles to show for it. I guess he thought he had little to loose.... Anyhow, since, as my teacher had explained in our civics class, our 'voting process' was 'secret', there was one 'screened' area for people who wanted to cross anyone off the list of candidates. If they did not want to vote for someone, they had to go behind that 'screen' (it did not hide who went there) and there they could cross any or all the names off the ballot, as was their 'right'.

So, my dad went behind that screen. My mom started to freak out. Everyone in the room froze - apparently, he was the first person that election day to DARE go behind the 'screen'. There, he read his ballot. Before he could cast it, however, he had to bring it back to our next door neighbour, the scrutineer, who had to put some marks onto the ballot to 'prove' that the ballot had not been 'tampered with' while it was out of her sight.....

When we left the room, my dad admitted that he did not dare to cross out any of the names on the ballot - that would mean ruin, as the ballot was specifically marked to indicate he had been the one to 'democratically' cast it.

That night, my bike and my mom's bike got stolen. I got beaten up - by a gang of teen boys that were not known in our neighbourhood - as I was coming home from school the next day. I was told that I was lucky that I was still a child.

The next elections, both my parents dutifully took their ballots and - without any hesitation or taking the time to read them - dropped them into the 'ballot box'. Our next door neighbour, who was again supervising our polling station, smiled knowingly and told my dad that he did the right thing. Her daughter was in my class, sitting at the desk next to mine....

It may not be easily discernible, but here - I perform my civic duty and vote at every opportunity I get. Not once have my kids been beaten up because I voted for the person who did not win (and that happens often). As far as I can tell, no terrible consequence had befallen me or my family because I took the time to read a ballot in private, behind a screen.... While not that easy to see by an outside observer, the difference is very easy to experience by the participants!

I have never lived in Iran, but I know people who did escape from that horrible, oppressive system. When, as a teen, I told my Iranian-born friend's father this tale, he just smiled and said things were 'similar' in Iran... The only thing he added to this was a stray comment - that he had to leave and get his family out when he did because he could not allow his daughter to go through life treated like a piece of cattle - and that as soon as she became a teenager, that was exactly how she would be treated by their government.

It shows just how sheltered people here are if the difference had not been beaten into them as it had been into me. Literally. I only hope that they may keep that naivite....for a long time. But this general pooh-pooing of our imperfect system scares me.

It is much harder to tear down something than to replace it with something non-destructive.

The problem is that democracy isn't the end all. If democracy were it, we'd just vote on everything. It the degree the REPUBLIC is insulated from democracy. Too much (in the case of Iran) and people at the top can effect a totalitarian government. (For example in communism). However, we can fall prey to tyranny of the majority if we don't insulate enough (I.e. europe or san francisco). The people who created the nation wrote extensively on the subject in the Federalist papers. I suggest that as reading material...most people who do suddenly realize "OH! thats how the constitution is supposed to work". In any case, If you read the Federalist papers you will find that this country has become a lot more democratic than it used to be...which is bad. Politicians cave to polls instead of considering an issue on its merits. We have a ferociously divided party system...also not encouraged. Finally, we've sprouted a 4th branch of government, called the Bureaucratic branch. Not to mention the wild unchecked power of the judicial branch. I'm not saying that any system of democracy is perfect, but I'd tend to take with a grain of salt any system of "Democracy" that includes a "Supreme Leader".

Funny you should pose this one Scott. I wrote an essay on this subject, for my Masters in Pol (yes, still slowly completing it too). It was called Is Iran a Model of Islamic Democracy? If you can excuse the conceit of me saying 'look at my essay!', it's got some interesting facts in there, derived from other sources. The PDF is over at this address:

Re the many comments that contain a similar theme to "Who cares about democracy?"

Please remember that when our glorious presidents/prime ministers choose to enforce regime change on a country, siting their lack of democracy as a reason to free their populace.

It appears that a lack of democracy can be a justification for war. As can the wrong sort of democracy. Or a good democracy with unpleasing results. Hell, why don't we just declare war on who we like for whatever reason we choose ?

As to your question Scott, Iran's system of government is valid as Americas. So who knows - before too long we could be treated to the sight of two democracies fighting one another......

2. The power is de-centralized in Iran, which is what makes it so interesting.

3. People running for election need to be approved, which means that you are unlkely to get a healthy opposition in power.

4. Despite that, Iranians are learning to use their democracy in order to send messages to their elected officials. This is really interesting. For instance in the recent city council elections, many women were elected, very few Ahmadinejad supporters were elected, and reformists gained power in a number of large cities. This despite the fact, that voting is not a simple matter here. (I have discussed the process on my blog (http://viewfromiran.blogspot.com/2007/01/tehran-city-council-elections.html))

i think Christianity is b/c even in the Bible there's separation of church and state (they complement one another but do not monopolise one another), hence y religion and freedom have coexisted in USA. i don't know if its the same w/ iran and islam

[Who has he been reliably informed by? Wikipedia? What utter utter rubbish. I suggest that he looks at his ballot paper next time.]

No, I think you'd best look at it next time you vote. The nice people who work at the ballot station gave me that particular gem. Given that we already give in census information which we're prepared to believe is anonymised, why not the same for ballot papers? Or do you not find it strange that you have a personalised one?

@ Bruce Harrison
That was some of the most ridiculus crap EVER:
First off, with moral relativists you undoubtedly mean LIBERALS, who don't like everything that is happening in their country. But they're not actually saying Iran is better off, they're pointing out problems with the American democracy that ARE indeed there. Only Amadinejad could think Iran has a better democracy. But other countries like Germany and the Scandinavians actually do have better Democracies than America. Everyone there is better off. And don't cite unemployment rates, the American system does not count long-term unemployed, those who want but can't find a job and several other categories.

Second the War in Iraq is a disastrous failure, and has not made the world safer, as evidenced by the British getting bombed in 2005. AFTER the war was officially over. There is no military solution, the Iraqis have to sort it out for themselves. There will be no victory without peace.

Thirdly, what you're saying about WWII is utter nonsense. Not only was it an easy win after the US and Russia entered the war (it took 3 more years, but it was easy), but Germany was never actually trying to biuld an atomic bomb. The people in charge decided it would take longerr than the war. The fact that the Manhatten Project finished before the war ended is testament to the US economy. The myth about Germany ever doing anything but an experimental reactor is FALSE. It's fun to imagine an alternate universe in which the Axis won, but in any case, their economy simply could not have kept up with the allies-ever. The only way would be if the War had been over in 1940-you think of a scenario for that.

Bruce you hit the nail on the head for me with your psychology babble. It made me rethink my views. But i think Scott's mental masturbation is worthwhile if purely to make us think about ourselves. "the unexamined life is not worth living."

Good question,
I am a french dude with iranian roots, so i am a little bit biased on this subject.
Both country seems "democratic" on paper, but they don't work as originally planned :
- In iran, apart the "supreme leader" and the "president" there are others people in the shadow whom have a strong influence (Ex president Rafsanjani for example).
- In the US, the executive branch is getting too much power, and killing civil rights.

American are too much used to think of iran as a third world country full of crazy terrorist ...
But I think that iran and the US are a lot alike, i was in the US 2 months ago, and i was amazed to think so many times "ohh that looks like iran !".

So let me clarify some facts about iran :

People in iran watch MTV, and american soap, and are mostly very open minded to western culture, they don't want to kill are american on earth.

There are christian and jewish in iran, the constitution protect their rights, they have their church and temple, and they have each a deputy in the assembly.

Iranian aren't terrorist at all, or connected to 9/11 as bush would like to make people believe it, in fact iranian (with commandant massoud in Afghanistan) were the first to combat taliban & Ben Laden people.

Iran was the first country to have a "statement of human rights" more than 2000 years ago !

And about the iran nuclear crisis : Iran hasn't done anything wrong considering the "not-proliferation-treaty" :
- the "not-proliferation-treaty" allow iran to enrich uranium.
- the only clue telling that iran want to produce atomic bomb was a highly enriched uranium trace, which after investigation by IAEA appear to come from pakistan (where some centrifuge have been imported).

Once again, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make, Scott, or the reason you’re trying to make it. The most germane answer to your question is, "Who cares?"

We in the West tend to over-analyze everything. Moreover, while such analysis would, on the surface, appear to be a good thing, it fails in one very important aspect: it is based on deductive reasoning.

There are two opposing results of this kind of thinking: if one believes that America is a horrible place, then everything that person sees will be twisted to support that view. If, on the other hand, one believes the opposite, then they will twist everything the other way.

True objectivity, when analyzing this kind of question, does not exist when it begins with an immutable belief in one of these two positions. Moral relavists (such as many on this blog) start from the anti-US position. Since the US is ‘bad,’ then anything that any other country does that thwarts the US is ‘good.’ So no matter how oppressive the Iranian regime is to its people, it’s really, in their eyes, a better country than this one.

This deductive reasoning becomes the basis for arguments that posit a moral equivalence between, say, a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a bunch of Israeli women and children (and the resulting exultation from the Palestinian community), versus an Israeli raid on a terrorist safe house resulting in the death of a woman or child residing in the house (with the resulting sorrow on the part of the Israelis). When one has already made up one’s mind, one can rationalize just about anything to fit their view.

Not to say that this doesn’t work the other way, as well. Some people take the “My country. . . right or wrong, but right or wrong, my country” thing to an extreme. Just because we do it doesn’t make it right. But refusing to admit that every person and every country does both good and bad at times keeps moral relativists from ever truly examining either individual events or building a true case to support their overall position.

This kind of thinking is mental masturbation at its most pointless. There are times when trying to determine how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin becomes counter-productive and distracts us from having valid debates on the truly important issues of our time. There is an old saw that says when you’re being charged by a rabid dog, it does little good to reflect on his puppyhood. There comes a time to put aside childish things and focus on the real world as adults.

Which brings me back to my main point; to wit: who cares if Iran’s government is equal to, worse than, or better that the US government? It makes absolutely no difference. Here’s why: Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979 when they invaded our embassy; that was clearly an act of war. We have done our best to not only ignore that fact, but many among us have tried to blame the US for it. This leads to an “if we stop being so mean, then they’ll stop fighting back” mentality.

Unfortunately, war is not a basketball game; you can’t cancel the war just because one team doesn’t want to fight it. It doesn’t matter now who was right or wrong; it only matters that the other side wants to fight us. There’s a term for not fighting a war when the other side still wants to: surrender.

So I propose looking at the situation in a different way: do we want to win the war or do we want to surrender? If we want to win, we have to fight. If we don’t want to fight, then we will ultimately lose. Regardless of whether Iran is good or bad, or whether we’re better or worse than they are, they want to destroy us – or so their leader, regardless of how truly elected he was, has said countless times.

Our new Democrat-controlled Congress has decided that they want us to withdraw from the field. This is known as “surrender” in most circles. Not only do the Iranians want to fight us, but al Qaeda wants to, too. As does Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and countless other groups, both Muslim and atheist (read, Hugo Chavez). Our saying to them that we don’t want to fight will just make them believe they’ve won. That doesn’t end a war, it extends it.

Of course, Americans don’t like an unfair fight. We want to wait, as we did in World War II, until our heretofore-beaten enemy is able to regain enough strength to give us a really good run for our money. WWII wasn’t a cake walk; we (the Allies) came pretty close to losing, after people for years had said that Germany would never rise again. If the joint Canadian-US raid to blow up Hitler’s heavy water facility in Norway had failed, we very well may have been forced to sign an armistice with Germany, and Europe would have fallen to the Nazis (if you’d like to read an incredibly chilling alternate-history novel based on that heavy-water raid failing, I’d heartily recommend “Fatherland” by Robert Harris).

So many today are knee-jerk wired to think that there is nothing worth fighting for. They are the counterpoint to Thomas Paine, who wrote concerning the American Revolution that “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” Nowadays, it appears a growing number of people in the West say instead, “If there must be trouble, let us try to put it off as long as we can, so we may have peace and thus allow our children to someday fight the war for us.”

Paine also said, “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.”

We have moved to the point where everything is too easy for us, and thus we do not esteem that which we have, nor appreciate the sacrifices that it took to give it to us. We have become the new Roman Empire; of the old, the satirist Juvenal said, “Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”

I humbly suggest that you refocus your considerable mental prowess on something other than bread and circuses, Scott. To not do so is to become a modern Nero. I believe you are better than that, Scott.